Skip to comments.Study: Men Caused Menopause by Selecting Younger Mates
Posted on 06/14/2013 11:10:52 AM PDT by nickcarraway
click here to read article
Thanks for the informative answer.
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
I have always thought that too until about a year ago.
Although it has long been assumed that women are born with all the eggs they will ever have in a lifetime, recent research has hinted that that might not be the case. Now researchers report the strongest evidence yet that women may be able to replenish their supply of eggs after they are born and perhaps after age or disease might have normally hindered their fertility.
I've had the chance to speak with 'scientists' about their subjects and consistently the biologists seem dumb as rocks. They 'study' things, but if you ask them their procedure, baselines and how they test they clam up or get defensive. Why is that?
I suspect they are less than scientists and more like parrots. As long as they parrot the party line, which may be government or professor or institution driven, but is most certainly a political process, they get funding and gigs. Any real science would end all that.
When confronted by well informed amateurs who won't toe the party line, they get frustrated. It's why it's so great to be a conservitive in America's North Korea. You're constantly challenged to come up with solid, irrefutable evidence for your theories. Something few scientists face today.
Or maybe Darwinism isn't tracking true. Today's scientist says, "If reality isn't tracking the model, go with the model that funds you."
He conflates natural selection with evolution. He can't be that smart to start with.
By definition, evolution theory consists of two main elements: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
"Descent with modifications" is normally just another way of expressing Murphy's Law that "anything which can go wrong eventually will".
So various forms of infertility are frequent "modifications".
"Natural selection" simply means such "modifications" don't get passed on to future generations, unless they somehow help individuals to survive and reproduce.
In the example of menopause, the old "grandma theory" seems perfectly reasonable to me, since even though it's highly exaggerated to say "it takes a village," it certainly does take a family to raise children, and traditionally, the bigger the family, with more support for youngsters, the better.
And nobody loves children more than grandparents, since once you're done playing with them, you get to give them back.
So, call it "natural selection" or call it "God's will", it's still just a little gift, to make grandma's life happier, and give children a better chance to grow up... ;-)
You really don’t know, do you?
"I'm still fertile! Come and get it boys!"
I don’t want to hit the little red x.
Thia hypothesis just does not make sense.
You need to ping the ‘scientist’ Singh. He doesn’t understand the theory where ‘environment’ plays Deus ex Machina and not the other way around. If men prefer younger women then evolutionary theory would indicate that the environment gave men that urge, no? Men didn’t choose it, but were bred for it because having that trait, ‘going for the young gal’, meant better reproductive success across all generations.
His premise is stupid and sexist and most likely political as he doesn’t understand the Theory of Evolution, but does get feminism. Despite his misapplication, his theory that menopause is caused my men’s preference for younger women fits just as well as the grandma hypothesis. The progeny are served just as well under either one. That’s the inherent tautology of the Theory of Evolution: if we have it, it’s because we need it.